Skip to main content

About your Search

20110726
20110726
STATION
CNN 5
CNNW 5
CSPAN 4
CSPAN2 4
MSNBC 3
MSNBCW 3
LANGUAGE
English 26
Search Results 0 to 25 of about 26 (some duplicates have been removed)
just ahead. >>> a small group of women in afghanistan have been given an important role negotiating alongside 60 afghan men trying to broker a lasting peace for their country. but the nine women claim that old habits die hard. and they have been margin alzheimer'sed in the talks. they aren't the only onings. while girl schools have been reopened in that country and the burka is no longer required by law, afghan women are treated like second-class citizens. one group in the u.s. is seeking to change that, not just in afghanistan, but other oppressive countries around the world. anita mcbride is now a senior to the george w. bush foundation and joins me now. we're taking about the constitute of economic empowerment for women. you had a two-day conference here. it's a step up. that's the theme of this conference. we've seen afghan women and women from rwanda from other conflict zones who have really become empowered to become entrepreneurs? >> absolutely. this organization raep believes that freedom and democracy in the spirit of entrepreneurship is the path to peace. it's founded by a
be the most egregious example to date of widespread corruption in afghanistan. american taxpayer money, hundreds of millions of dollars, ending up in the hands of the taliban. a year-long u.s. military task force discovered that the money was siphoned from a $2 billion transportation contract to provide most of the supplies to american troops. a source with knowledge of the investigation has briefed cnn about how it all went down. we are joined now from the afghan capital, kabul. just tell us briefly, how did this happen? >> reporter: this is coming from an internal report, but basically what happened was trucking companies subcontracted out to local entities here, who then in turn subcontracted out to even more local providers. what happened was it turns out that some of those local, more local firms actually had some ties to nefarious elements, including the taliban. what we see here is a bulk of the transportation costs being filtered through some of these trucking companies and part of that money is actually ending up in the hands of the very individuals who are fighting nato force
savings from winding down the wars in iraq and afghanistan. these are real savings that cbo scores at about $1 trillion. we know that some republicans will quibble over these savings but they have no leg to stand on. but wars are the second biggest policy driver of our deficits after the bush tax cut for the conduct and the worst ads to our debt, to is undeniable that winding down the war's delivers savings. the administration tells us with the wind down, they can't prosecute -- they can count on billions of dollars over the next decade the cbo count $1.67 trillion. we know the republicans agree theythis mstath because included the same settings in the ryan budget that passed the house. they never criticized that accounting and it is hard to see how they could do so now. lastly, senator reid's proposal allows for a joint committee that has the potential to achieve deeper savings down the road. all in all, this is an offer that republicans cannot refuse. all of the cuts in center repots proposal have been supported at one point or another by republicans. if they refuse this offer, i
. the reid plan says we won't be in iraq and afghanistan. that's $1 trillion. we'll have a commission. that will save us $$1 billion. those aren't real. >>> the problem you have is ideological purity. when you sit here and look at the congressional budget office, made it clear that if the bush tax cuts were not extended, all of them, deficit goes down. if you extend all of them, $3.3 trillion increase over ten years. that's fact will we won't sit here and debate a fact. it is a fact. and so on democratic side, it is crazy to sit here and say we have no issue with medicare, medicaid. no issue with social security. you have rising costs. at some point you cannot have people on the democratic side and the republican side say absolutely not. i'm not giving up anything. you have to be able to give up something. >> the republicans were willing, at least until recently. you heard john boehner, the speaker of the house saying he was willing for $800 billion in tax revenue. increases in taxes in effect. that's not ideological purity. >> right. could he sell that to his party? >> and at the end
savings on the mandatory side and savings from winding down the war in iraq and afghanistan. these are savings that cbo scores of about a trillion dollars, that cbo scoring them at a trillion dollars. now we know some republicans will quibble over the savings but they have no leg to stand on. though war is the second-biggest policy driver of the deficit after the bush tax cuts. if conducting the war ads to the debt, it is undeniable winding down the war deliver savings. the administration tells us with the wind down their putting in place in the iraq and afghanistan, they can prosecute the war on about $630 billion over the next decade. cbo, however, assumes 1.67 trillion in war funding for 2021. by adopting the administration's lower number, we can save over a trillion. we know the republicans agree with this because they included the exact same savings in the wrong and budget that passed the house. i never criticized such accounting then and it's hard to see how they could do so now. last, senator reid's proposal allows a joint committee that has the potential to achieve e
-- the other factor is that we are now drawing down the cost of our military efforts in afghanistan and iraq. last year we spent a little over $150 billion. this year we'll spend a little over $100 billion. and the plan is to soon be down to at least $50 billion in two or three years. so over the ten-year period there'll be about eight years at nearly $50 billion or so spent on the war instead of $150 billion. that's part of the plan that we've been operating on for a long time. $150 billion for the war is not baseline expenditure of the united states. it was never projected to continue at that level, so hopefully we could bring it below $50 billion. maybe we went get to $50 billion. i don't know. but what is the reasonable estimate? i think the house republicans and the president said it would drop to $50 billion, and that would be the baseline out there for the rest of the time. that's $1 trillion. that's $1 trillion. so you take $1 trillion out of the $2.7 trillion, you're down to $1.7 trillion. and another thing that's scored in that, since that $1 trillion in war costs is scored the way
were meant to go to taliban militants in afghanistan. one indictment describes a heroin deal that have grew into a $9.5 million arm sell. an ooatheist group is suing to block the display of the world trade center cross. they say the cross display is, quote, an inpermissible mingling of church and state. it consists of two steel beams. it was found in the wreckage and moved to the memorial on saturday. and one year after the worst oil spill in u.s. history, bp's bottom line is pretty good. the company announced $5.3 billion in second quarter profits. that's a $22 million turnaround from the same period last year. $22 million swing the other way. and now they're posting $5 billion profit. >> a lot of people are going to be looking at the second quarter profits. >>> player or spectator? the president's changing role in the debt talks and whether he can really be sidelined plus, fast and furious. why a controversial gun program is sparking new outrage today in congress. you see, airline cres promise flights for 25,000 miles, but... [ man ] there's never any seats for 25,000 miles. frustrat
dollars in savings from winding down the wars in iraq and be afghanistan. that would raise the debt ceiling enough to get us through 2012, though boehner's would only take us through the end of the year. last night the president and speaker both aimed to put publish pressure on the other. >> there's no symptom of big government more menacing than our debt. break its grip, and we begin to liberate our economy and our future. >> i'm asking you all to make your voice heard. if you want a balanced approach to reducing the deficit, let your member of congress know. >> reporter: enough people did, presumably supporters as well as opponents, that the speaker's web site crashed along with those of a couple of other republicans and at least one democrat. republicans say the president wants a long-term debt ceiling hike to keep it out of his re-election bid. democrats say the bond rating agencies want a long-term hike. a short-term one, they say, would risk a downgrade of this country's credit rating, and that would hike credit interest rates on everyone. jon: the overwhelming number of calls
military to be getting the news in afghanistan and iraq of all the upheaval in washington, because they're getting the news, of course. and for them to worry, oh, my gosh what happens august 2 if my paycheck isn't there or my wife or my husband -- for my wife or my husband to be able to use that to pay our mortgage or the basic expenses? i just want to put it in perspective here. we have people in the military with boots on the ground by the thousands that are making under $20,000 a year. now, those are people who are living paycheck to paycheck. they don't have the luxury of having a big savings account with that kind of income, and especially if they've got children. my goodness, they're making under $18,000 a year, some of these younger junior members of the enlisted corps. so i don't think we ought to make them worry for ten seconds if they can pay their basic bills for their housing and the food for their families. in my state of texas, there are 28,000 brave men and women deployed in the support of operations in iraq and afghanistan. there are more than 97,000 service members depl
down the cost of our military efforts in afghanistan and iraq. last year we spent a little over $150 billion. this year we'll spend a little over $100 billion. and the plan is to soon be down to at least $50 billion in two or three years. so over the ten-year period there'll be about eight years at nearly $50 billion or so spent on the war instead of $150 billion. that's part of thelan that we've been operating on for a long time. $150 billion for the w is not baseline expenditure of the united states. it was never projected to continue at that level, so hopefully we could bring it below $50 billion. maybe we went get to $50 billion. i don't know. but what is the reasonable estimate? i think the house republicans and the president said it would drop to $50 billion, and that would be the baseline out there for the rest of the time. that's $1 trillion. that's $1 trillion. so you take $1 trillion out of the $2.7 trillion, you're down to $1.7 trlion. and another thing that's scored in tt, since that $1 trillion in war costs is scored the way mr. reid scored that, which is phantom money,
. $2.70 trillion in spending cuts, including money saved from ending the war is in iraq and afghanistan. chuck schumer and senator reid spoke about the proposal with reporters for about 25 minutes. >> senators durbin and moynihan are on an airplane. unfortunately, they are not here. but they are on their way. i spent all weekend trying to work something out with republicans. instead of moving forward, we went backwards. one example -- our spending this year for the military is that $700 billion. that is more money for the military than the rest of the country's put together. you would think that in this debate that we have, they could chip in a few bucks to cut some spending. this weekend, the republicans wanted to raise spending. something modest, something the pentagon could live with. over the weekend, lo and behold, more funding for the pentagon. so, rather than trying to work with us on something as obvious as this to save money, they went their own direction. the economy has been forced to have the same debate on the same subject a few months from now. republicans and their short-
ten years and the expected savings from the drawdown from the wars in iraq and afghanistan is how they are calculating what they can save and the republicans are not happy about that and that is where the divide is. the real fight right now is trying to see where the winds are blowing with what is called the boehner plan. we don't know exactly when that vote will be taken, because there is a lot of head counting going on and maybe some arm twisting, too, to figure out if they can get it through. should it not pass, we are into another whole scenario of what to do next. >> kelly o'donnell on capitol hill. thanks. we want to bring in kristen welker at the white house. kristen, jay carney, the white house press secretary says that he does not believe that the default will happen. as we hear from the two sides both agreeing that the debt limit needs to be raised, it is inevitab inevitable. >> it is the one thing that all sides can agree on here, and you are right, the press secretary jay carney says he has complete faith that the debt ceiling will be raised by next week, but the big q
these savings from withdrawing from iraq and afghanistan. and essential education, job creation, housing, and environmental investments where america's economic recovery and for our strong economic future would be protected from the slashing cuts proposed by the house republicans. the irony is, republican leaders previously have backed all the spending reductions called for in leader reid's plan. now, i don't agree -- and i suspect all of us don't agree with all aspects of this proposed solution. but we're not going to have 100 solutions on this floor. we're going to have one that we can vote on. i wish this would have included new revenue, especially by ending such costly and outdated tax benefits as those still enjoyed by the biggest oil companies to help us pay off our debt even more quickly. i'd like to help pay for the debt incurred by the inexcusable earlier decisions to enter two wars without paying for them. and i continue to believe the surcharge for the wealthiest would mean that they would pay more of their fair share after so many years of tax cuts that have tilted far more t
reid's plan because he is using the savings from winding down the u.s. presence overseas in afghanistan and iraq which the republicans did in their own budget presentation here in the house. >> it is as confusing as you say, and we are still waiting to see how this matter will be resolved. congressman chris van hollen, thank you for joining us. >> good the o be with you. >>> and if anyone can make sense of the situation, it is our team in washington. stay tuned. ♪ operator can you help me ♪ help me if you please jeff, lunch! uh-huh. jeff! honey, i can't walk any faster. [ female announcer ] oscar mayer deli fresh turkey comes in a clear pack... [ cellphone beeps ] [ jeff ] ooh. thanks hun! [ female announcer ] ...so the freshness you see is what you taste. ♪ it doesn't get better than this ♪ helps defends against occasional constipation, diarrhea, gas and bloating. with three strains of good bacteria to help balance your colon. you had me at "probiotic." [ female announcer ] phillips' colon health. just don't feel like they used to. are you one of them? remember when you had mor
of that is what senator reid calls the winding down of the wars in iraq and afghanistan. that will save a trillion dollars. now republicans have called that a gimmick, a savings from wars that are winding down, even though, by the way, the same savings were counted in some republican budgets. reid's plan would not reform or cut medicare, medicaid, social security. also no changes to taxes. it would raise the debt ceiling by 2.4 trillion dollars. that would be enough to fund the government through next year's election. the boehner plan is considered more short term. it would raise the debt ceiling in two different steps. the first step would happen immediately raising the ceiling by a trillion dollars and spending cuts of 1.2 trillion over ten years. and get us to next year, right some we need a second vote to raise the debt ceiling again by another $1.6 trillion. that second increase would be contingent on more cuts. another $1.8 trillion in spending cuts and have to be agreed to by a bipartisan committee. >> so far, the debt stalemate has been a drag on the stock markets but not as bad as some of
decade. a big piece is what senator reid calls the winding down of the wars in iraq and afghanistan. that will save $1 trillion. republicans have called that a gimmick, savings from wars that are winding down, even though by the way, the same savings were counted in some republican budgets. reid's plan would not reform or cut medicare, medicaid, social security. there would be no changes to taxes. it would raise the debt ceiling by $2.4 trillion. that would be enough to fund the government through next year's election. now the boehner plan is more short term. it would raise the debt ceiling in two different steps. the first step would happen immediately. raising that ceiling by about a trillion dollars, would be accompanied by spending cuts of $1.2 trillion over ten years. that would get us to next year. right? when we would need a second vote to raise the debt ceiling again by another $1.6 trillion. now that second increase would be contingent on more cuts, another 1.8 there the in spending cuts that would have to be agreed to by a bipartisan committee. the second vote you guys, is
of the money that we are going to save by not continuing operations and iraq and afghanistan for the next ten years at their current level. that that was also in the rhine and budget. as it turns out, the rise in budget receives $2.2 trillion in savings without using that accounting gimmick triet compared to the president's 2011 number, the ryan budget saves $6.2 trillion without using that accounting gimmick. with the ryan budget does -- if you look through the various charts and pages of it -- it also has various comparisons, including pretty much the obligatory comparison to what is called the current law budget that cbo scores, and in that he compared because that's what cbo does the oco cost for the overseas contingency operation cost, but he did not utilize that in order to achieve the savings in his budget. so i had made the same mistakes others had in assuming what we were told was correct. paul ryan made it clear no, that wasn't correct. when we criticized the bill that the majority leader has brought up for use in over a trillion dollars in savings from that oco account, i think we
Search Results 0 to 25 of about 26 (some duplicates have been removed)